FCC Chair Julius Genachowski says that 500MHz of spectrum licenses must be …

Share this story

The Chair of the Federal Communications Commission unveiled a key component of the agency's impending National Broadband Plan on Wednesday: a program to free up 500MHz of spectrum over the next decade for the mobile wireless industry. The agency will propose a "Mobile Future Auction" that will allow television broadcasters in "spectrum starved" markets to "voluntarily relinquish" licenses in exchange for a cut of the auction proceeds.

Speaking at the New America Foundation, FCC chief Julius Genachowski gave yet another "looming spectrum crisis" speech, warning that mobile high speed Internet—which the government has clearly made the centerpiece of broadband development—must have more licenses to meet exploding demand. He cited figures from Cisco that by 2014, North American wireless networks will carry 740 petabytes of data per month.

"Now even if you think a petabyte is something that sends you to the emergency room, you know that that’s a game-changing trajectory," Genachowki quipped. "Although the potential of mobile broadband is limitless, its oxygen supply is not," he added. "Spectrum—our airwaves—really is the oxygen of mobile broadband service. Without sufficient spectrum, we will starve mobile broadband of the nourishment it needs to thrive as a platform for innovation, job creation and economic growth. And the fact is America is facing a looming spectrum crunch."

Genachowski said that the FCC will work with the Department of Commerce's National Telecommunications & Information Agency on developing the 500 MHz plan. The NTIA's proposed budget for 2011 indicates that 500 MHz project "will focus on making spectrum available for exclusive use by commercial broadband providers or technologies, or for dynamic, shared access by commercial and government users."

Volunteers needed

The FCC's boss has to maneuver somewhat gingerly around this issue. The broadcasting industry has given a distinctly cold reception to wireless and consumer device maker proposals for ways that television license holders could dramatically reconfigure their high altitude, high power transmission systems to free up as much as 180 MHz of spectrum. Now the FCC and NTIA are talking about 500 MHz.

So Genachowski emphasized that this would be a "voluntary program."

"While overwhelmingly—roughly 90%—of Americans receive their broadcast TV programming in most major markets through cable wires or satellite signals," he assured broadcasters, "there are still millions of Americans who receive TV through over-the-air antenna TV. Broadcasters would be able to continue to serve their communities with free over-the-air local news, information, and entertainment; and they would be able to experiment [with] mobile TV."

But the spectrum for the FCC's grand broadband plans has to come from somewhere. As we've reported, last week Genachowski disclosed that the document will call for 260 million people to have 100Mbps Internet access by 2020. So Wednesday's speech was laden with phrases like the "current inefficient spectrum allocation," and bore down on what Genachowski called the "broad range of analysts" who say that there's wireless broadband gold in those TV spectrum license hills. He cited studies suggesting that $50 billion in value could be unleashed if even some licenses could be transferred to broadband use. About 300 MHz of spectrum has been reserved for broadcast TV, he noted. But "even in our very largest cities, at most only about 150 megahertz out of 300 megahertz are used."

"The Mobile Future Auction is a win-win proposal," Genachowski concluded, "for broadcasters, who win more flexibility to pursue business models to serve their local communities; and for the public, which wins more innovation in mobile broadband services, continued free, over-the-air television, and the benefits of the proceeds of new and substantial auction revenues."

Magic bullet

We contacted the National Association of Broadcasters to see if they saw this proposal in win-win terms.

"As a one-to-many transmission medium, broadcasters are ready to make the case that we are far and away the most efficient users of spectrum in today's communications marketplace," NAB Vice President Dennis Wharton circumspectly told us. "We look forward to working with policymakers to help expand the roll-out of broadband without threatening the future of free and local television, mindful of the fact that local TV stations just returned more than a quarter of our spectrum following our transition to digital."

Expect broadcasters to emphasize, as you just read, that the TV industry just completed the DTV transition, and that Verizon and other winners in the 2008 700 MHz auction have yet to fully use their newly bought spectrum. But Genachowski noted that the license crunch exists despite these realities. "New technologies allow—indeed, they require—new strategic planning to ensure the most efficient use of spectrum, a vital public resource, especially given our broadband needs," he explained.

Needless to say, the wireless industry is quite happy with the government's plans. CTIA's President and CEO Steve Largent called the speech a "tremendous step forward." Communications lawyers also say it's pretty huge. The address "should erase any doubts that the National Broadband Plan will announce that more spectrum for mobile broadband is the magic bullet," Washington, D.C. attorney John Hane told us. "The FCC is going far beyond spectrum policy or even broadband policy—this is a statement of general federal industrial policy, and it reflects the views of the Administration generally, not just the FCC."

Hane advised spectrum owners to start paying close attention to where this goes. "Broadcasters and other spectrum incumbents better be vigilant and smart," he warned. "Incumbent wireless providers should be wary too—if they aren't using spectrum to its fullest capacity, they could be at risk."

The FCC's National Broadband Plan will be unveiled at its upcoming Open Commission meeting, scheduled for March 16.

Share this story

Matthew Lasar
Matt writes for Ars Technica about media/technology history, intellectual property, the FCC, or the Internet in general. He teaches United States history and politics at the University of California at Santa Cruz. Emailmatthew.lasar@arstechnica.com//Twitter@matthewlasar

Best thing that could happen is a requirement that all devices be able to work over all the spectrums, regardless of who owns the spectrum locally, prevent spectrum owners from being anything other than dumb pipes to content (can u hear them scream yet?) and also prevent the same crap that's happening now with cell phones from bleeding into this spectrum auction.

It's time to separate device from carrier and let the market control the cost of devices and their features.

So, just a few years ago, it was the government screaming that OTA must be preserved for the millions (yes, it is millions) of people who still receive TV via antenna and now, they want to start tearing it down?!

Originally posted by Madlyb:So, just a few years ago, it was the government screaming that OTA must be preserved for the millions (yes, it is millions) of people who still receive TV via antenna and now, they want to start tearing it down?!

Sad, truly sad.

No one is turning anything off. This is a proposal to simply re-seed the frequencies in use, freeing up the wasted, unused channels in most parts of the country, and making that available to rural broadband.

See, in cities, you turn the dial and there's something on every channel. Out here, we have 4 local broadcasts of major networks, and 2 truly local channels. 6 out of what, 30 channels in use? ...and I live in the state capitol! Some overlapping static from nearby areas might be 12 frequencies we'd be unable to use for broadband? If we simply changed what channels everyone used, so they were all linear in one block, then sold the rest back for other uses, we could provide additional cell and broadband air waves to cover every resident, and every station broadcasting today still would be.

It is true that the UHF broadcast band is pretty large, even though it is not as large as it once was. Channels 14 through 69, now, instead of 14 through 83. At 6 MHz per channel, for 56 channels, this is 336 MHz (from 470 MHz to 806 MHz).

I suppose that the FCC isn't really asking for more spectrum bandwidth from television than it actually has allocated to it, but instead the "500 MHz" figure might mean something like 100 MHz in each of five major cities. (Edited to correct arithmetic error.)

There is more bandwidth available in the higher frequencies; frequencies in the area of 2,000 MHz and 5,000 MHz have been used for special purpose TV signals. It should be possible to use frequencies that are less important to the general public than those of TV broadcasting for new services.

Map TV channels in 1GHz or lower frequencies to 1GHz+ frequencies and limit the power output so it will only cover the immediate areas/cities the channels are suppose to serve. Let the applications that can truly use the bandwidth (read: internet, cell phones) use the more valuable, better penetrating, spectrum more effectively.

What would be great is if there was a public/private partnership for wireless connections that offered a low tier of service for everyone (128K should be sufficient, or whatever the FCC considers "broadband" these days) free of charge and then offered higher bandwidth to those that want it at a discounted price. Then the .gov could then actually own the spectrum instead of leasing it as well and the telecos wouldn't have to pay billions of dollars. 500 MHz is a lot of spectrum! This would also be great because then the telecos would standardize on a frequency range and then consumers wouldn't want to worry if their T-Mobile phone will get 3G service on AT&T's network for example. All we'd have to worry about is CDMA vs GSM and LTE vs WiMax then

See, in cities, you turn the dial and there's something on every channel. Out here, we have 4 local broadcasts of major networks, and 2 truly local channels. 6 out of what, 30 channels in use? ...and I live in the state capitol!

Actually, that isn't the case at all. In cities they may not have any available spectrum, but that's not the same thing as something on every channel. TV stations are allocated spectrum in a way to minimize interference. So there has to be several hundred miles between transmitters that are on the same frequency. Even then, there are cases where skip and tropospheric ducting can cause stations to interfere. During the digital transition there were many cases of the digital transmitters degrading reception in adjacent market stations because they were too close to each other. It didn't cause problems with people who lived close to a transmitter, but out in the fringes of the market area (where paradoxically most of the OTA viewers are) it made some stations unwatchable.

I think there's a lot of spectrum that could be used before grabbing more TV spectrum, especially in the microwave bands. Longer term, TV stations should be looking at going to a lower power, multiple transmitter option and fine tuning their coverage areas. Megawatt transmitters and "big sticks" are the stuff of engineer's and general manager's dreams, but if you're only doing it to reach that last 1% of the population (who receive a marginal signal anyway), why bother?

"As a one-to-many transmission medium, broadcasters are ready to make the case that we are far and away the most efficient users of spectrum in today's communications marketplace,"

This claim is surely true. Moreover, we have just gone through an expensive transition to improve the quality of the signals transmitted over this spectrum. The result works very well. There are no real public needs that can justify an expensive effort to create 100 megabit connections to each home. This whole effort sounds like big government waste. There is absolutely no use for very high bandwidth connections to the home that justifies spending a large amount of money on them until the private sector finds a consumer demand that justifies the investment.

So it's not OK to mortgage the public's mineral rights in ANWR, but it is OK to mortgage the public's wireless spectrum?

I think I'm on-record as being hugely in favor of a switch to all-packet/switched communications - that said, this article completely glosses over the financial incentive for this proposal (that is, it helps resolve the present administration's massive budgetary problems).

The other thing is, I don't think this is going to represent the cash windfall Genachowski represents it as. At this point there's only three financially viable major wireless broadband providers in the country - and Deutsche Telekom is heading for the exit. Verizon has $55B in long term debt, AT&T has $64B - where are they going to get that $50B? I understand that they didn't buy *all* the spectrum at the auction, but look at subscriber turnover rates - people are moving to the duopoly pretty quickly; and VZW and T are gobbling up smaller providers like greasy hor d'oeuvres. They won't represent all of the $50B, but they will represent over two thirds of it.

It's a problem of oversupply. You can expect the engineering departments of these companies to be pretty far-sighted; but they're just going to say "yes, we need to buy it." Then it'll come to the cash management guys and the analysts. We'd be selling more spectrum than has ever been sold at one time. They can put two and two together, and wouldn't waste their time bidding up the spectrum (if only because neither of those companies can afford to take on another $20B in debt).

The more I read/hear about these plans, the more nervous I get that the whole thing is going to be botched a la line access deregulation in the last 90's early 2000's. Verizon and AT&T are *not* working to provide the best product to their customers; moves like this (big spectruum grabs) only serve to undermine competition because only VZW and T have access to capital markets in the way needed to make these spectrum buys.

Didn't we just learn out lesson about too big to fail? I understand why regulators like huge companies (laziness, makes their lives easier to deal with one company than thousands) - but after getting screwed by them so many times, you'd think they'd have learned their lesson? Regulation *shouldn't* be easy. They should work harder than the telcos themselves to make sure their is always competition.

Originally posted by gmerrick:Best thing that could happen is a requirement that all devices be able to work over all the spectrums, regardless of who owns the spectrum locally, prevent spectrum owners from being anything other than dumb pipes to content (can u hear them scream yet?) and also prevent the same crap that's happening now with cell phones from bleeding into this spectrum auction.

It's time to separate device from carrier and let the market control the cost of devices and their features.

Are you advocating that every wireless device be able to transmit (if it transmits at all) and receive on all bands? Or that every wireless device be able to transmit (if it transmits at all) and receive on all bands for that service?The first option is far, far more expensive and difficult (IMO, due to antenna requirements it's probably just not practical) than the second.

Originally posted by Galeran:I don't suppose any existing mobile wireless equipment would work on the frequencies to be relinquished? But hey, what's a few million junked smartphones. China will take 'em...

Someone really needs to come up with some sort of dynamic antenna/radio combination that can retune itself without using too much power to do so.

Making radios receive and transmit over wider bands is easier now than it used to be, but it's still expensive, and the wider your transmit/receive bandwidth is, the more expensive and larger things get. If you adopt a wide-band antenna to go with this, you make your transmitter and receiver larger, more susceptible to interference, and more expensive.

If you're seriously interested in the possibilities (and current costs) of this approach, read up on Software Defined Radios, which handle the dynamic radio portion of what you're talking about. They're not cheap, and they require plenty of processing power, but they're way cool.

This is scary. The government selling out the public's resources to corporate interest in order to get itself out of a financial and political jam. Think to yourself - why not lease the spectrum and have public service requirements like we do now.. it's all about a money grab and the public need to realize that it's our resource that is being sold and we will NEVER get it back, it will become the property of the wealthy elite (shareholders) for the purpose of extracting profit from the public (all American citizens) forever.

Shouldn't this have been thought of in the previous auctions? They could have either taken a percentage of the auction to pay the broadcasters for this bandwidth, or made space for the bandwidth by slightly narrowing the other categories.

This administration at least tries to solve issues, rather than just grab a ton of cash.

The spectrum issue can be resolved with municipal public owned utilities building fiber to the block networks connecting every household/business in the urban area wired or wireless. Each block node would have a single dual band wireless N AP and ports for 1 GigE copper ethernet.

Future bandwidth and speed issues would be addressed by 60 Ghz WIFI 802.11ad.

Where the city owned the power distribution as well costs would be trivial if the ethernet pipe was combined with the communication requirements of smart meters.

Smart Phone/ATA based VOIP (Google Voice or City network access) and basic cable (local) would cost a trivial amount

Sadly as a consequence Big Telecom would be out of business. They pay out a lot in campaign donations to ensure this doesn't happen.

Intuitively it doesn't make sense to sell off public spectrum as has been done.

The alternative, for private industry to buck up an INVEST in infrastructure they claim to need, is apparently not on the table. Of course, the gov't could do it themselves and create world-class national public networks, but that would highlight "government spending for something I don't want, personally" — and yet these same people have no problem paying $100+ a month to a private company. Fools' errand, it is.

Actually, SDRs are cheaper (for the same job) than conventional radios.

Since I've actually owned a few for Amateur Radio puposes, I've compared specs and capabilities.

The real barrier to further adoption is simply the unfamiliarity -- using mice instead of dials.

As long as you have a basic direct conversion front end, a 1 GHz 32 bit processor is plenty enough to do the job.

But, on a dollar per capability point of view, my SDRs have it all over any conventional amateur radio (the majority of which are anything but homebrew). I get at least twice the capability for the same dollar, especially including receiver performance, interference rejection, and other elements relevant to this discussion.

Actually, SDRs are cheaper (for the same job) than conventional radios.

Yeah, my comments were rather abbreviated there. The comparison I was making was between what we currently have (for example the radio in your cell phone) and the SDR. That the SDR is much more capable, and a better value for a given level of capability is not really the point. If you don't need the extra capabilities (and I see no reason to think that applications such as cellular communication do), and don't want to incur the costs (extra battery drain, increased processor requirements, etc.) then the SDR's strengths aren't important.

And that's really the central issue here: people (myself included) often talk about how awesome it would be to have some super-duper technology in their gadget so it would do everything. If your gadget doesn't need that technology, or if adopting it compromises other features of your gadget (e.g. if it causes your battery life to go to hell), then it doesn't really matter how super-duper that technology is in other applications.

That said, SDRs really are cool, and they're only going to get more capable (and more common). I'm not sure whether or not that capability is a good match for something like a cell phone, though.

I'd love to see them reclaim the VHF low channels. They aren't a hunk of spectrum or a large number of stations using those channels and they always seem to be problematic in the areas that have those stations. Most UHF/VHF antenna's have really poor reception on the VHF low channels.

Originally posted by Madlyb:So, just a few years ago, it was the government screaming that OTA must be preserved for the millions (yes, it is millions) of people who still receive TV via antenna and now, they want to start tearing it down?!

Sad, truly sad.

No one is turning anything off. This is a proposal to simply re-seed the frequencies in use, freeing up the wasted, unused channels in most parts of the country, and making that available to rural broadband.

See, in cities, you turn the dial and there's something on every channel. Out here, we have 4 local broadcasts of major networks, and 2 truly local channels. 6 out of what, 30 channels in use? ...and I live in the state capitol! Some overlapping static from nearby areas might be 12 frequencies we'd be unable to use for broadband? If we simply changed what channels everyone used, so they were all linear in one block, then sold the rest back for other uses, we could provide additional cell and broadband air waves to cover every resident, and every station broadcasting today still would be.

Because of channel overlap and interference aka Intermod, you can't have the channels all in a line. The reason why there are spaces between the channels is to eliminate the interference issues. Certain channel pairs need wide spacing because of the off channel intermod issues they run into. The alternative is to go to a single frequency network but that requires building out a series of towers like the cell companies use, vastly expanded maintenance to cover the same area and it will require using a different encoding spec then the current ATSC spec as ATSC is not suitable for SFN.

Originally posted by kjuneja:Map TV channels in 1GHz or lower frequencies to 1GHz+ frequencies and limit the power output so it will only cover the immediate areas/cities the channels are suppose to serve. Let the applications that can truly use the bandwidth (read: internet, cell phones) use the more valuable, better penetrating, spectrum more effectively.

This shows a complete lack of knowledge of how DTV works. 1ghz+ would require anyone using these frequencies for reception to have an outdoor antenna as you'd have very poor penetration of structures and lousy propagation. This would also require a massive increase in transmitter power to cover the given area and you'll need new tuners or converters in everything. Many of the users of the OTA signal are in the rural areas on the outskirts of the market, well outside the city centers, this means you'd cut them off and they are the users most in need of the over the air signal as they are the least likely to have cable tv or internet or dsl options.

Just because you live in the city, doesn't mean everyone else does, or if they do can afford cable/satellite. Think about others before spouting off ideas, especially when you know next to nothing about what your talking about.

Originally posted by evan_s:I'd love to see them reclaim the VHF low channels. They aren't a hunk of spectrum or a large number of stations using those channels and they always seem to be problematic in the areas that have those stations. Most UHF/VHF antenna's have really poor reception on the VHF low channels.

If there were proper incentives to cover the conversion to UHF and the extra expense of the power needed to transmit it, as well as the costs of converting the transmit antenna and new transmitter I could imagine a fair number of stations in the VHF band being willing to move.

Many stations that are VHF went to it because they were VHF analog stations before and because the cost of running a UHF transmitter is much higher and generally requires more maintenance and specialized technicians as well as a more robust power grid. Most VHF stations have gone to solid state transmitters as they are easy to maintain, and very frugal on power. Typical VHF stations are running transmitters in the 2-4 kilowatt output, versus UHF stations are typically in the 24-26 kilowatt range, and that becomes too expensive in small markets to afford to do it via solid state, thus they are typically tube based. Solid state transmitters are around 90ish% efficient, tube based is low to mid 50ish% efficeint. I burn through $11k a month in power to run mine, versus a VHF station can drop that to maybe $1.5-$2k a month in power.

UHF works better for TV users as most of the antennas sold are designed for UHF and the new mobile tv standards work best with UHF as well.

Auction off all of the ownership of all TV spectrum to anyone that wants it (since the broadcasters got it for free) if the broadcasters want it that badly let them pay for it (which we know they don't want it that bad). Wireless data is where the money is at. Use the proceeds from the auction to transition the people receiving over the air broadcasting to basic cable. Then in the future if anyone has a better use for the spectrum they can buy/license it from the wireless data provider who currently owns it and we wont have worry about the FCC taking 30 years efficiently allocate spectrum again.

Originally posted by jeff77k:Auction off all of the ownership of all TV spectrum to anyone that wants it (since the broadcasters got it for free) if the broadcasters want it that badly let them pay for it (which we know they don't want it that bad). Wireless data is where the money is at. Use the proceeds from the auction to transition the people receiving over the air broadcasting to basic cable. Then in the future if anyone has a better use for the spectrum they can buy/license it from the wireless data provider who currently owns it and we wont have worry about the FCC taking 30 years efficiently allocate spectrum again.

If your going to reallocate the spectrum don't auction it off, make the users that want the spectrum meet the same public service requirements that broadcasters have to meet and to pay for those requirements out of their own pockets. Lets see how many line up for that. If you want an example of how many will look at the block of spectrum that was tied to the public safety requirement.

Auctioning off spectrum is the most single stupid thing you can do and guarantees only the incumbents will get it, combined with them getting the ability to charge the public for it while also getting to choose where they will use it. Unlike broadcast where there are strict requirements, that if not met can result in heavy fines or loss of license.

Originally posted by jeff77k:Auction off all of the ownership of all TV spectrum to anyone that wants it (since the broadcasters got it for free) if the broadcasters want it that badly let them pay for it (which we know they don't want it that bad). Wireless data is where the money is at. Use the proceeds from the auction to transition the people receiving over the air broadcasting to basic cable. Then in the future if anyone has a better use for the spectrum they can buy/license it from the wireless data provider who currently owns it and we wont have worry about the FCC taking 30 years efficiently allocate spectrum again.

windnwar covered most of the points succinctly and clearly (+1), but:

the auctions aren't for ownership of the spectrum. The FCC auctioned off 99-year leases to that spectrum. Furthermore, at this time, transfer of licenses requires FCC approval of the entire process, rather than a simple agreement between two corporate entities. I prefer it that way.

As for the FCC taking 30 years to efficiently allocating spectrum, do you know what it means to allocate spectrum, and why the processes we have for doing so exist? Do you have any idea what efficient allocation means, how you'd measure it, and why you'd choose to do things one way versus another?

Originally posted by windnwar:If your going to reallocate the spectrum don't auction it off, make the users that want the spectrum meet the same public service requirements that broadcasters have to meet and to pay for those requirements out of their own pockets. Lets see how many line up for that. If you want an example of how many will look at the block of spectrum that was tied to the public safety requirement.

What the emergency broadcast system - you think that's worth billions of dollars?

Originally posted by windnwar:If your going to reallocate the spectrum don't auction it off, make the users that want the spectrum meet the same public service requirements that broadcasters have to meet and to pay for those requirements out of their own pockets. Lets see how many line up for that. If you want an example of how many will look at the block of spectrum that was tied to the public safety requirement.

What the emergency broadcast system - you think that's worth billions of dollars?

There's more to those public service requirements than just the emergency broadcast system.

windnwar has a point: those public service requirements are amazingly expensive to meet, and if we find value in those requirements, then auctioning off spectrum licenses without attaching those requirements (which is what we did with the 700MHz spectrum) is not going to continue the services we value.

Sure the NAB members have a stake in this, but that doesn't mean those public service requirements are chicken feed either. I see no reason to let useful services fall by the wayside in some unthought rush to 'modernize' or 'make more efficient use' of our spectrum allocations. Maybe we're better off without those requirements, but maybe not, and we deserve to have that discussion before we get blinded by all that once-in-a-lifetime cash for the government.

I'm not sure that's quite the case anymore. Since the switch to digital, more and more people are finding out that they can get a crystal clear picture over the air with a rooftop antenna (business is booming at Winegard), and are returning to free OTA broadcasts.

I was fortunate that I didn't remove my antenna when going to cable 25 years ago, and it was easy enough to spruce it up with a new rotor and some coax. It was a pleasant surprise to see 29 channels show up after my tuner finished scanning. Sure, some of them are duplicates of the major network feeds that I get from both the Providence and Boston markets (I live 22 miles south east of Providence). But there are many hours during the day when these local affiliates offer their own programming. (Channel 5 out of Boston often carries Big East basketball games that are not being shown on the major networks.)

I don't miss at all having to pay for dozens of channels I never watched. And if you have heard the rumor that Hi Def OTA is sharper than through a cable, even FIOS, I can confirm that it's true. The fact that it's free is just the icing on the cake.

I don't miss at all having to pay for dozens of channels I never watched. And if you have heard the rumor that Hi Def OTA is sharper than through a cable, even FIOS, I can confirm that it's true. The fact that it's free is just the icing on the cake.

And if the large cable companies are allowed to merge with content providers, how long do you think that will remain true? I predict that they will attempt to degrade the OTA quality by holding High Def. content at this quality for ransom as 'high value' (read:expensive, even though it takes an extra step to degrade the show to standard def now) so that broadcasters will be forced to show less content in Hi Def. Another reason to resist the merger. Recently I have been seeing a few shows air with a 'brought to you by Dish Network' logo at the beginning, even though this was a broadcast station. Guess what, the show was degraded standard Def. even though it is a High Def. filmed show and typically broadcast in high def.

I don't miss at all having to pay for dozens of channels I never watched. And if you have heard the rumor that Hi Def OTA is sharper than through a cable, even FIOS, I can confirm that it's true. The fact that it's free is just the icing on the cake.

>>And if the large cable companies are allowed to merge with content providers, how long do you think that will remain true? I predict that they will attempt to degrade the OTA quality......<<

The Comcast NBC merger is troubling. The onerous deals the TV networks have with the rebroadcasters already amounts to a price fixing oligopoly (monopoly is some areas), and so far, the states and the FCC have allowed this situation to exist with little to no regulation. Prices are increased on a regular basis for TV and Internet, with no relation to cost. COX in Rhode Island just announced a 30% increase in its "Limited Basic" service - thats channels 2-23. 30%!!! -- for channels that are mostly free OTA, plus a few cable access and foreign langauge networks. The situation is totally out of control.

The rebroadcasters (cable/FIOS/Sat) and TV networks make a big show of bargaining", negotiating, playing hardball, etc. over rates. But it's all just for show. Neither of these entities could be making half as much money without the other. It's a marriage made in heaven for them, and one made in hell for the consumer, that literally begs for tighter regulation.

I'm not sure how the Networks could "degrade" the quality of OTA transmissions without effecting what the rebroadcasters receive as well. All the signals are bounced off the same satelittes and relayed by the same towers. Anyone with a 4 foot dish, a satellite receiver (not the Dish Network or Direct TV type) and the right south/southeast exposure can receive the same signals the cable and FIOS companies get. Of course the signals are encrypted or scrambled, but there is a whole industry out there devoted to cracking the encryption schemes they come up with every year or so. And it's very successful at it.

The FCC is now talking about line sharing for broadband Internet. It may just be talk, but it has ISPs sitting up and taking notice. Verizon, Comcast, Cox, TW, etc, have marshalled all their lobbying efforts to nip this idea in the bud. There are logical arguments favoring both sides on this issue. There's a lot of private money being invested in broadband expansion, and for the Government to just suddenly say that these companies have to share their cable lines with any one who comes along certainly sounds arbitrary. At the same time, Internet service is fast becoming what many would consider an essential utility. There's only a small number of players in what is the combined TV/Broadband industry. They have run the show pretty much free of serious regulation since the broadcast spectrum was opened up in the 80s. Dial up still has 100s of small local, regional, and national companies filling the need that's there, but with broadband, there only a few very big entities (should I say too big to fail?) who control way too much.

There needs to be a balance that's missing now. How we get there, I dont know.

It is unbelievable to me that you are all missing the point. The problem is not in the rural areas, where there is no problem with the amount of spectrum; it is in the big cities. All of the TV stations saw this coming when the HDTV cut-over happened too. Simply put the government is broke and selling spectrum to carriers is one of the ways they have to make a bunch of money fast. They won't be buying the spectrum out in the rural areas because that isn't where they need it. They will only buy what then need in the cities, where there are so many TV stations that some will have to be moved "involuntarily". I think ultimately all of the OTA stations in the urban areas will be eliminated to make room for better cell phone reception. With the roll-out of 4G networks this year and next the amount of data will start to escalate. This is the reason the carriers have started new data rates this year instead of the unlimited data they have had up until this point. Now you will be charged for the data you use, and if you don't use very much you can get a savings. What this means is some day soon you will have to decide if you want to watch that movie on your cell phone or wait until you get home to watch it on your home internet connection. It has now become obvious that wireless will not be the wave of the future, as was previously thought, but only a mobile platform when you are away from the office. A few years ago we all thought that the wireless office was not only possible but the wave of the future. Now with so many people jumping online the level of performance has dropped and as usage increases it will only get worse. Some day soon there won't be any OTA in the urban areas of this country and our grandchildren will stare wide-eyed when we talk about receiving television over the air.